M.T. v. Officer Craig Medley

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 4/9/14. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
M.T., by his next friend, Marneka D.
Hayes,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.: 14-cv-0424
v.
OFFICER CRAIG MEDLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff M.T., a minor, by his next friend and mother, Marneka D. Hayes, brought suit
against Officer Craig Medley, the Annapolis Police Department, and the City of Annapolis,
asserting a variety claims arising out of Medley’s alleged assault of M.T. on or about August 7,
2013. See ECF 1 (“Complaint”) at 1. Currently before the Court is defendants’ “Motion to
Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint” (“Motion,” ECF 5). The Motion has been fully briefed,1 and no
hearing is necessary to resolve it. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I will deny
the Motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendants assert that plaintiff’s Complaint violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 8(d)(1), and
10(b). Because of the alleged violations, defendants contend that the Court should exercise its
power under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) “to strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

In particular, defendants contend that portions of the

Complaint should be stricken because the Complaint: (1) “set[s] forth an introductory summary
of allegations in 2 unnumbered paragraphs, which violate[s] proper pleading”; (2) contains
allegations that “are redundant and superfluous”; (3) “contain[s] opinions and editorial
1

Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion. ECF 6. Defendants did not file a Reply.

comments of the Plaintiff’s attorney regarding the events that are alleged” that are “redundant,
immaterial, and impertinent”; (4) “contain[s] references to anticipated witness testimony to be
given at trial”; (5) refers “to unspecified events” and “to unspecified allegations of damages”;
and (6) is not “concise.” Motion at ¶¶ 7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 20, 21.
“Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor because striking a portion of a
pleading is a drastic remedy and because it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory
tactic.” Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “[w]hen reviewing a motion to strike, ‘the court must
view the pleading under attack in a light most favorable to the pleader.’” Piontek v. Serv. Ctrs.
Corp., Civ. No. PJM 10-1202, 2010 WL 4449419, at *8–9 (D. Md. Nov. 5, 2010) (citation
omitted). Moreover, Rule 12(f) motions “will be denied unless the matter under challenge has
‘no possible relation to the controversy and may prejudice the other party.’” U.S. ex rel. Ackley
v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 110 F. Supp. 2d 395, 406 (D. Md. 2000) (quoting Steuart Inv. Co.
v. Bauer Dredging Constr. Co., 323 F. Supp. 907, 909 (D. Md. 1971)); accord Williams v.
Kettler Mgmt. Inc., Civ. No. CBD-12-1226, 2014 WL 509474 (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2014); E.E.O.C. v.
Spoa, LLC, Civ No. CCB-13-1615, 2014 WL 47337 (D. Md. Jan. 3, 2014). However, “the
disfavored character of Rule 12(f) is relaxed in the context of scandalous allegations, i.e., those
that improperly cast a derogatory light on someone.” Asher & Simons, P.A. v. j2 Global Canada,
Inc., 965 F. Supp. 2d 701, 702 (D. Md. 2013) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Review of the Complaint persuades me that its content is not “redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, [] scandalous,” or otherwise inappropriate.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

Although

plaintiff’s Complaint may contain some factual details beyond those necessary to meet the
pleading standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), I cannot fault plaintiff for providing defendants and

2

the Court with more notice of the factual basis of his claim than the bare minimum that is
necessary. See Fette v. ACell, Inc., Civ. No. ELH-12-3733, 2013 WL 500497, at *1 (D. Md.
Feb. 8, 2013); see generally Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2008) (“[A]
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels
and conclusions . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
In any event, although defendants assert that the Complaint’s alleged violations of Rules
8 and 10 are “inherently prejudicial,” Motion at ¶ 23, they do not articulate what prejudice they
would sustain by having to respond to the portions of the Complaint they allege do not comply
with Rule 12(f). This alone is reason enough to refuse the “drastic remedy” of striking portions
of plaintiff’s Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) (A motion must “state with particularity the
grounds for seeking the order.”); see also Haley Paint Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co.,
279 F.R.D. 331, 337 (D. Md. 2012) (exercising discretion not to strike pleadings under Rule
12(f) where the movants “articulated no prejudice that would result from a denial of their
motion”); U.S. ex rel. Ackley, 110 F. Supp. 2d at 406 (noting that Rule 12(f) motions “will be
denied unless the matter under challenge has no possible relation to the controversy and may
prejudice the other party.” (Emphasis added) (Internal citations and quotations omitted)).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny the Motion. A separate Order follows.

Date: April 9, 2014

/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

3